Ginsburg Has Liver Cancer

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@WuWei

It was the correct ruling. Nobody dislikes money in politics more than I do.

To be clear - you saying the decision in Citizen’s United was correct, not that Stevens’ dissent was correct - right?

I actually at least partially agree with the decision in CU as well.

I am troubled by some of the inferences made to get to the decision, but I’m not one of those who reflexively reject it.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@WuWei

Then explain it, not “no it wasn’t.”

I did. Just a post later.

We all have our rhetorical devices.

[Forcefield]

@conan

Hate to say this…she won’t. from my understanding unless she gets a liver transplant and even then they will only extent her life for short period…and be a waste of a perfectly good liver.

Death panels!

[WuWei]

@TheDoctorIsIn

@WuWei

It was the correct ruling. Nobody dislikes money in politics more than I do.

To be clear - you saying the decision in Citizen’s United was correct, not that Stevens’ dissent was correct - right?

I actually at least partially agree with the decision in CU as well.

I am troubled by some of the inferences made to get to the decision, but I’m not one of those who reflexively reject it.

Yes, the decision.

[WuWei]

Where?

[WuWei]

@Forcefield

@conan

Hate to say this…she won’t. from my understanding unless she gets a liver transplant and even then they will only extent her life for short period…and be a waste of a perfectly good liver.

Death panels!

You must be the kid that’s the reason the rest of us can’t have anything nice.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@WuWei

Where?

In the post that you responded to - the next post I made in the thread.

@TheDoctorIsIn

I know that it looks like I’m picking a nit here - but although it may not appear to be, I think this is an important distinction.

There is an important difference - at least in the context of campaign finance law - between campaign contributions and independent expenditures.

[conan]

I think the word timeless might be more appropriate IMO.

[conan]

Indeed…

[Eagle-Keeper]

@BillBrown

Carter beat it with immunotherapy. Ginsburg said immunotherapy didn’t work
on her cancer and she’s taking chemotherapy.

A friend of mine’s dad was diagnosed with colon or stomach cancer. He was 88, the doctor didn’t even reccomend chemotherapy at that age. He did eventually die of it. No one is going to live forever.

[conan]

That’s fair IMO, the way I see it you have to accept hte good with bad…that was one of those decisions.

[conan]

You could say that.

What would YOU do?

Be honest now…

[WuWei]

You didn’t explain the difference.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@conan

That’s fair IMO, the way I see it you have to accept hte good with bad…that was one of those decisions.

The problem I have comes from the premise that as a term, corruption is limited to explicit quid pro quo exchanges.

That is how the court reconciled the decision in CU with the previous standing precedent from Buckley v. Valeo.

I still (at least mostly) agree with the overall decision. But that’s a troubling sort of legal precedent.

[FreeAndClear]

Timeless is good. Body of It is timeless. I agree

[WuWei]

@TheDoctorIsIn

@conan

That’s fair IMO, the way I see it you have to accept hte good with bad…that was one of those decisions.

The problem I have comes from the premise that as a term, corruption is limited to explicit quid pro quo exchanges.

That is how the court reconciled the decision in CU with the previous standing precedent from Buckley v. Valeo.

I still (at least mostly) agree with the overall decision. But that’s a troubling sort of legal precedent.

Excellent point!

I have a problem with prior restraint.

[WuWei]

@FreeAndClear

Timeless is good. Body of It is timeless. I agree

The Bill of Rights more so.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@WuWei

You didn’t explain the difference.

No one asked.

Campaign contributions go directly to the campaign apparatus - they can spend that money on whatever they want. They can spend it on TV ads, or salaries for the President’s daughters-in-law.

The decision in CU allowed corporations (and unions) to spend money trying to assist a candidate independently - essentially inventing the “IE” campaign.

Later court decisions based on CU allowed for SuperPACs - entities that exist solely to perform IE campaigns.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@WuWei

I have a problem with prior restraint.

Please elaborate, if you don’t mind.

[WuWei]

@TheDoctorIsIn

@WuWei

You didn’t explain the difference.

No one asked.

Campaign contributions go directly to the campaign apparatus - they can spend that money on whatever they want. They can spend it on TV ads, or salaries for the President’s daughters-in-law.

The decision in CU allowed corporations (and unions) to spend money trying to assist a candidate independently - essentially inventing the “IE” campaign.

Later court decisions based on CU allowed for SuperPACs - entities that exist solely to perform IE campaigns.

Thank you, was that so hard? Which of the two is less likely to create quid pro quo and why? And what is your objection to supporting a candidate independent of his campaign?

You are hitting on the 1st Amendment objection very well.